Image 01 Image 03

Cain 4th Accuser – Open

Cain 4th Accuser – Open

The details are in my prior post.

Is he guilty just because someone says he is? Is he said/she said really just “she said.”

I think this will be very damaging. And there probably is nothing Cain can do about it regardless of the truth. That’s the reality.

Politico, of course, will use this allegation — of which it was unaware — to justify its prior shoddy reporting tactics.  But such justification is unjustified.  Had Politico published facts on day one, it would have been a very different journalistic matter.

What do you think?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



I don’t really buy her story. As someone on Twitter noted, it sounds like it came straight out of Allred’s 1980’s feminisms/women’s studies book. That said, you’re right, true or not, this is damaging.

Campaign-ending? That remains to be seen. Clinton survived much worse before both of his elections.

    Maybe she was a willing participant up to a point. She may have engaged in a bit of flirting giving him the wrong idea. She did say that when she said no he stopped.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Fuzzy. | November 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    But Clinton had a team of investigators, lawyers etc. poised at a moment’s notice to go on attack against accusers, and the MSM loved him.

    Owen J in reply to Fuzzy. | November 8, 2011 at 7:12 am

    Cain is being accused to “intent to commit adultery” here — not “sexual harassment” as the woman did not work for him.

    Making a pass at a woman, even unsolicited, that you do not work with, in a private or social setting, is not “sexual harassment”.

    Cain did nothing illegal and there is no connection between this claim and charges that he engaged in sexual harrassment of any female employees.

    The idea here is simply to make a specific but unsubstanitiated claim that he made a pass at a woman while married, thus allowing people to make the leap that if he would make a pass at any woman, he would sexually harass women who worked for him.

    But the news has been using this term in their headlines of course, and people are falling for, of course.

    Practically speaking, there may not be much of a difference in that allegations of adultery may be just as damaging.

    But I wish (in vain) that people could keep them straight.

    BTW: This is what Allred does — Whitman acted just as she should, but those Allred wanted to sway did not care. They were not aware of what the law demanded or the details of the case — they just saw Whitman “being mean to” a Hispanic woman, and it engergized enough of a voting block to do significant damage to her campaign.

What remedy is her esteemed lawyer seeking?

    It’s FAR outside the realm of any sort of legal remedy. This is just about the accuser venting her sour grapes and doing damage to Cain, and about Ms. Allred finding a willing patsy to stand up there and claim “he sexually harassed me” to do damage to a Conservative candidate.

    The left is terrified of Cain, because should he become the nominee, it becomes a race between two black men and the Main Stream Morons lose the ability to play the race card.

    Just two words are proof that the story is false: Gloria Allred.

I think this will be very damaging. And there probably is nothing Cain can do about it regardless of the truth. That’s the reality.

he has NO way to fight this, and thats why Alred set it up.
wish a smart and honest lawyer would investigate her…..

I, a cain supporter, am absolutely livid.

I am sooooo tired of Herman Cain and his antics sucking up all the Republican oxygen from the room. We should be hearing about economic plans, deficit reduction, jobs plans, how GOP candidates are going to turn this country around. Obama is sitting laughing in the White House and his poll numbers are going up. Cain is doing the GOP a huge disservice. He handled the whole episode poorly from the start and now we have a never-ending feeding frenzy, where Conservative ideals are getting pushed aside for salacious gossip. I don’t care if he is innocent at this point, the independents are never going to vote for him based on the MSMs portrayal of him and these exploits. It is time to move on. We need to beat Obama.

    Browndog in reply to damocles. | November 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Obviously you’re new to today’s politics.

    Unless by “move on”, you mean it’s time for the State-run media to move on to chewing up and spitting out the next threat to the Obama Regime.

I think it’s just another of Gloria AllRed’s tactics to take down Republican candidates. Remember Meg Whitman?

Can the upgraded hotel room that Cain is alleged to have booked be checked on? If he did book the Presidential Suite, he is toast. If not, Allred is toast.

it is troubling that nobody explains that we have statutes of limitations for a reason: faded memories, destryed evidence etc. there is no way to resolve the issue.

There are questions — and not for Herman Cain.

    GrumpyOne in reply to richard_mcenroe. | November 7, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    richard_mcenroe, I think that this pretty well sums up the situation. The democrat attack machine is alive and well.

    Cain is the single worst threat to O’bammy at this point.

    But, all stops will be pulled to save the current liar-in-chief no matter the cost to using common sense…

DINORightMarie | November 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Herman Cain has been Palinized.

No defense against the charges. Nothing to counter the media coverage – even if proven flat-out untrue.

No way that Herman Cain can go on, must step down, yada yada. Alinsky tactics properly applied work for the left every time.

I think Andrew Breitbart needs to do some digging on this whole issue, and on the lawyer who shopped around for a “Cain victim” to exploit.

I just heard Rush say something about “how can this Biaylek lady afford Allred”? Silly Rush, Allred getting all this PUBLICITY is her payment. Also, a caller remind Rush that in one of Clinton’s accusers’ cases, the courts declared no harassment occurred since the girl/victim in question was not Clinton’s employee, and he stopped on her request.

Just like Cain, oddly enough, according to his accuser. So, this is looking more and more like a smear, with the worst case being that Herman Cain might be unfaithful; not sexual harassment, as is purported, as the Democrats crowed back in the late 1990s (similar time frame, coincidentally).

The case will die, unless there is some hard, fast evidence proving that it is more than he said/she said. The “testimonies” of a past boy friend and/or mentor are questionable at best. But the press, the media will not let this die. They will continually “remind” everyone that Herman Cain was at the very least “accused” if not guilty of sexual harassment. The “sex-crazed black man” card thrown down – a la To Kill a Mockingbird. Alinsky 101.

No, this smells more and more like a leftist hit job. And, like the Spanish Inquisition, there is no defense.

The media chooses who our candidate will – and will NOT – be?! Only if we allow it.

Andrew Breitbart – time to investigate and find out the TRUTH!

    Good points. This is obviously being touted for conservatives, who are supposed to be offended (probably because he’s black and she’s white, leftists will insist on projecting their own failings on us) and stop supporting Cain. It may work, but that’s all it is. We already know how they feel about actual rape and interns giving married presidents bjs in the Oval; we also already know that a good number of indies think that personal lives don’t count. Conservatives are supposed to, and will be, asking themselves if personal lives do count, if this was actual sexual harassment and not mixed messaging, and if this ultimately matters in the primary. It won’t in the general because indies and dems don’t care about stuff like this (in theory).

I like Cain and I believe he is innocent but I think this will finish him. He doesn’t have the greased pig skill of the average politico.
Frankly it will not matter which republican ends up finally running against Obama. He/she will get slimed. that’s the way Obama won elections in the past. Cain is only a preview of what is to come.

    aguyfromjersey in reply to farmboy. | November 8, 2011 at 6:34 am

    That’s a BS argument. If you believe Cain is the real deal, these “charges” shouldn’t change your mind.

    If the harassment was more then “He made me unconformable. He was hitting on me”, then why settle? Going out for dinner and drinks (and remembering what you and he was wearing)) with a married man, trying to get a job, and he tries something, and stops when you say NO. In the 90’s?

    This is the only response to Cain’s 999 plan that the Dems can come up with.

littlebeartoe | November 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm

On CNN just now, Martin Bashir hosted a schadenfreudefest with a black commenter saying that the fact that Cain’s latest accuser is white and blonde will enable us all to see how open-minded the GOP really is to having a black front-runner. Bashir and the other pundit agreed vigorously but carefully– the other person, a former DNC official, said “you’re trying to get me in trouble here!” when Bashir asked her to be specific about that analysis.

In other words, if Cain’s support stays up there, the GOP supports sexual harassers; if Cain’s support falls, it’s because the GOP is racist.

In a primary, the only people who can truly damage Cain’s candidacy aren’t the Gloria Allreds and Paula Jones-wannabes…but fellow conservatives who (yet again) mistakenly think this a boon to their non-Cain candidate and are ready to amplify the presumed verdict on the Left’s behalf.

Obama, looks like your administration get to extend your holiday from public attention of all your current misdeeds + failings.

theduchessofkitty | November 7, 2011 at 3:34 pm

“I think this will be very damaging. And there probably is nothing Cain can do about it regardless of the truth. That’s the reality.”

Then, the election is over. Obama has already won.

dino that is my point. there is nothing to invetigate. there is no evidence one way or another. statutes of limitation and rules of evidence are n place for a reason. there is no opportunity to cross examine this woman.

    DINORightMarie in reply to javau. | November 7, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I agree with you. However, it is possible to find out how Bialek was contacted, to get into who she is, why she was fired, and to understand her character.

    This is what a defense lawyer would do in a rape case. Find out all about the victim, then try to destroy the character or expose the victim’s past as reason to doubt her accusations.

    I am not saying it is right, or good. But to find out FACTS about this lady: who she is connected to in Chicago, etc. would be very helpful in determining who she is really; why she came forward with this hack lawyer; and if she got any financial compensation from this whole circus.

    That is what I hope Andrew Breitbart can find out. And, perhaps, more on the infamous Allred.

    It is highly relevant that she can’t prosecute, due to statute of limitations, etc. But the public display of this woman’s accusations requires public exposure of the truth, bright sunlight, and hard facts to determine more about this accuser Bialek.

      those who believe her now are going to believe her regardless of the evidence and vice versa. i guess i am saying that these things will never be resolved but theres nothing to be done about it except for some smart law professor to explain the reasons behind our procedural laws. i didnt hear the press conference but i heard that aldred said she wasnt going to sue. someone should explain the near fraud aldred is perpetrating.

      Milwaukee in reply to DINORightMarie. | November 7, 2011 at 10:16 pm

      Dino: This is what a defense lawyer would do in a rape case. Find out all about the victim, then try to destroy the character or expose the victim’s past as reason to doubt her accusations.

      I am not saying it is right, or good. But to find out FACTS about this lady: who she is connected to in Chicago, etc. would be very helpful in determining who she is really; why she came forward with this hack lawyer; and if she got any financial compensation from this whole circus.

      The reason good defense lawyers do this is because there are false accusations of rape. Ugly necessity. Yes, this needs to be done here: if the accusations are false those making them, and those supporting them, need to face some consequences. Unfortunately, I doubt they will suffer enough for smearing his reputation.

      Said it before and I’ll say it again:
      Just two words are proof that the story is false: Gloria Allred.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm

He’s denied the charges repeatedly since the story broke. Yet after the press conference, as Gloria Borger of CNN was telling CNN viewers what it is they had just heard and witnessed, she sprinkled in some her own “expert analysis”. She insisted these new allegations mean Cain must respond again.

It’s he said/she said — but the media wants to ignore his side and treat whatever she says as gospel truth. Allred was smart enough to wave around two affidavits at the press conference corroborating her client’s assertions which at least give the appearance of credibility to those assertions.

It may be too late, but Cain might be able to salvage things by lining up 4 or 5 women he’s worked closely with over the years who view him favorably and are willing to attest to his character. He should have been working to line up those witnesses during the 10 day period after Politico gave him the heads up about the story but before the story was published. Then the day after Politico publish the story, he could have called a high profile press conference and let the women tell how he treated them when they worked closely with him.

That may have ended it. Or at least slowed things down.

    I would ask whose affidavits they are. If they are of the people she told the story to, my opinion would be that they are hearsay and not normally admissable. I am remembering that properly, correct, Professor?
    If one is from the woman, then Gloria AllRed has some sort of a case, but not of harassment. It’s hard to see a crime, other than murder, that could be successfully tried like this after such a long time. Some people have brought up the hotel room and its upgrade. I doubt those records are even in existance, if they ever were. As it’s been said here and on other blogs, it all boils down to he said, she said.

it’s all verifiable: the hotel suite, the flights etc.

and she told people at the time – who will come forward too.

cain should resign from the race.

and his sycophants start looking for a presidential candidate.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to reliapundit. | November 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Then, bring the whole d***ed evidence forward – this very minute!

    You want this whole issue over? Let’s do it! Let’s see the evidence! Otherwise…

    VetHusbandFather in reply to reliapundit. | November 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    You could easily assume the flip side based on the ‘evidence.’ If there are hotel reservations/flights in her name, which she paid for. Then who is to say this wasn’t a failed attempt by her to seduce the CEO into giving her a job. He turns down her sexual advances and she tries to pull the sexual harassment card. She gets her friends to write and sign affidavits, goes to a lawyer with the ‘evidence’ and gets told she has no case. So she forgets about it until 14 years later. I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m just saying that the same ‘evidence’ you are using still gets you no-where in a he-said/she-said case, and of course the elephant in the room: if it was such strong ‘evidence’ then why wasn’t it pursued 14 years ago.

      I would think that would bother anyone that someone waits 14 years to come forward with this story. Surely if it happened the way she said it did, she would have been more than upset. Surely she would have made an effort to contact someone of importance to hold him accountable. And yet she didn’t.

      David R. Graham in reply to VetHusbandFather. | November 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm

      “Then who is to say this wasn’t a failed attempt by her to seduce the CEO into giving her a job.”

      I think you have identified the core of the truth in this incident.

      Combine with Chuck Skinner’s analysis of body language, etc. – which confirms my own – and one has a revenge phenomenon over dissapointed ambitions put in service of a personal and political media hit.

      When the researchers do their work, that’s what they will conclude.

      What kind of hit will DNC employ when media hits don’t work?

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to reliapundit. | November 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    None of that “verifies” her accusations and you know it.

in case you got wrong idea i think cain is a disaster. this situation is ludicrious like the clarence thomas thing it wil never be resolved. its unfair to the accused. lets sa you acuired all that so called evidence. how would the final resolution come about? with a poll?

These charges are of an entirely different order and kind. They are not anonymous and certainly not vague or lacking detail. To a large extent, they can be corroborated. They do lend credence to the charges reported by Politico. Cain certainly cannot refuse to respond and simply “move on.” Unless there is an awfully good response — like demonstrating that this accuser is nuts or a Democratic shill or otherwise lacking credibility — it has to be said that Cain is through and he should recognize it.

Yes, Clinton survived Flowers, etc., but life is unfair.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to JEBurke. | November 7, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Tell us how the “charges” regarding Cain’s specific conduct – not the surrounding circumstances – can “largely” be corroborated.

    There are certain events which MIGHT be able to be corroborated (like the hotel stay, the fact that dinner occurred and dates of travel), but it is highly unlikely that anything else could be corroborated in any way.

    As for the specifics she is offering, see my post below detailing exactly how this woman is full of horse manure.

    This is manufactured at best. If this is the best manufacturing of a smear job that the Left can do against Cain (a disgruntled person who wasn’t offered a job, yet made no timely allegation, EEOC or FLRB complaint, being paraded around by a known Leftist) then Cain doesn’t have anything to worry about in the “skeletons” department.

damocles | November 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Who is responsible for not addressing the real issues? It’s not Cain. You must have missed the debate the other night. The Media is on a witch hunt and anybody but Romney is the target. I refuse to let the media decide who I vote for. This is a circus created by the media – shouldn’t they be reporting on Solyndra and Fast and Furious? Just asking.

The only evidence remains assertion, hearsay, and circumstantial. There is still no direct evidence to support any of the allegations — implicit or explicit — made by any of the women. This may simply become a case of rule by democracy, which in matters of this nature tend to be determined through perception.

The best these women can hope for is a direct witness or forensic evidence. None of which have actually come forward or discovered, respectively.

So, do we err on the side of safety? Will justice be rendered through a democratic process?

I’m withholding judgment until she gets the whole Wurzelbacher treatment by the media.

BannedbytheGuardian | November 7, 2011 at 4:16 pm

OMG. Not surprising America is losing all the Beauty Contests .

You are fixated on middle aged & elderly sex.

This is not very appealing at all & harmful for international & in fact , all relations. It is putting people off sex.

At least Russian media teamed Putin up with the Olympic Rhythmic Champion -she of the exotic feline face & grace.

Epic fail.

If you’re up against Politico and Allred, gosh, how weak of a case do they have? If it comes down to he said/she said, I think that this can actually help Cain’s standing with the GOP. The MSM is unwittingly creating a soft spot for Cain by unleashing the hounds on this guy (no racist overtone intended…it’s just a phrase for crying out loud). How anyone with a shred of human decency and critical thinking ability can watch this circus compared to Clinton/Weiner/Spitzer/insert any number of other Dems, and not conclude that the MSM is out for GOP blood is fooling himself. If there’s nothing provable to the story, I think it very well might give him a boost.

The Cain defenders only course is to thoroughly vet the accusers background and motive. Tearing her creditability done will be necessary in addition to shooting holes in her story?

John F. Kennedy…had it easy.

At some point, there has to be someone saying “enough is enough.” I believe this last allegation will be very damaging. Four women making claims of sexual harassment will be more than the public is willing to “overlook.” I also agree with others who have said we cannot afford to “settle.” Innocent or not, Mr. Cain’s rep as been tarnished at this point.

    Browndog in reply to shesmilez. | November 7, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Feel free to enlighten us on the other 3 “victims”, and specifically what Cain, the serial sexual predator, did to them.

    Then, pass that information on to Politico–40 articles and numerous television interviews later, they still don’t seem to know.

In past elections, the Internet equivalent of “seminar callers” would leave comments seeking to undermine the GOP candidate or candidates. This is the first election cycle that I can remember in which sadly the seminar commenters seem to be coming from other GOP candidates’ campaigns. Everyone should take a deep breath and refrain from pronouncing someone’s candidacy “toast” until things settle down. The goal to is to rescue our country from socialism in November 2012, isn’t it?

WARNING: Bad language ahead. You’ve been warned.

This woman is full of horseshit. [/end bad language]

Part of my profession is learning how to read people to know when they’re telling me the truth (I have my own arbitration, mediation and negotiation business in addition to being trained as a lawyer). Her story rings true up until the time they’re at the Italian restaurant and talking about the available jobs. Notice that’s the ONLY tidbit that she brings up about their entire dinner conversation. Once you’ve seen it a handful of times, it becomes VERY easy to tell when somebody is embellishing something with distorted facts or actively playing up a misunderstanding when they knew full well what was meant.

Further, look at the way she’s READING her list of charges and STUMBLING over them. This warrants closer investigation of the exact wording of what she’s saying, because she’s uncomfortable with it (meaning she hasn’t spoken it much, or thought about it much in the phrased terms being spoken).

Further, the PHRASING is VERY specifically chosen to attempt to do damage, not just convey information. Let’s look at some of it line-by-line:

– “He had his SHIRT open” (not his collar open).
– “I had a black PLEATED skirt, suit jacket and a blouse” (not just “I was wearing a skirt”). Notice her head and eye movements as she’s speaking, head movement as she “remembers” to say that she was wearing a suit jacket.
– “What are you doing? You KNOW I have a boyfriend; his isn’t what I came here for” (not just “I told him no”).
– The sly, almost leering look up when she said “Mr. Cain said, ‘you want a job, right?'”

She’s trying desperately hard to present the “wholesome school-girl image being taken advantage of by an older black man.”

This is someone who is trying to make a quick buck off of the fact that she was fired and not offered another opportunity in the Restaurant Association.

Ms. Allred (who we already know is only interested in furthering Liberals, destroying Republicans and generally spreading manure as much as possible) is READING AND POINTING over her shoulder, as if to say “emphasize this, emphasize that.” If Ms. Allred were any closer, she’d be whispering in the accuser’s ear (which, you can actually see her lips move, so I’m not even sure that she WASN’T as the accuser was laying out her damning charges.

And the “support” that she “told other individuals at the time?” Please. Anybody worth their salt would have seen these actions AT THE TIME as a GOLDMINE of a sexual assault claim if they happened as stated, as well as an EEOC claim and a FLRB claim for not being offered the job after an approach demanding sexual favors. If ANY of this were true, she would have gotten a lawyer the instant she wasn’t offered another job at the restaurant association.


If I were an accuser of Herman Cain sexually harassing me a decade ago, under what circumstances would I risk my privacy and sanity by not showing the smoking gun, the blue dress, the emails w/in 15 minutes of opening my pie hole?

1- There is none and I’m a Democrat attack plan.
2- There is none and I’m freaking insane for wanting this spotlight.
3- There is none which is why this is coming out now instead of in 1997 when I could have cashed in with a serious lawsuit.

Can Legal Insurrection ascertain just what exactly Sharon Bialek is seeking here?

Because having just watched the ‘press conference’ where she detailed the incident; what she described is not sexual harassment but technically something more serious…. a sexual assault = felony.

What is she seeking exactly? What does ‘filing a complaint’ really mean in this case? What does Bialek’s “I want you to JUST admit what you did” really mean?
A lawsuit resulting in criminal prosecution? Compensation from Cain?

And who’s paying Allred?

I think this means endlessly hearing from Jennifer Rubins, Rich Lowry, David Brooks, Bill Krystal, Charles Krauthammer the idea that anyone who does not whole-heartedly support the smooth-talking, flip-flopping, unprincipled Global Warming supporting Harvard-snot Mitt Romney means hating Mormons.

This is what I think.

I night agree that Cain has been damaged by unproven allegations just like Palin was. Unfortunately there is going to be a big push by the GOP insiders who didn’t like him anyway to convince us that he is unelectable.

For those who think this will help Perry, IMO if he ever starts to make a move we’ll be seeing dirt on him – no sense in wasting it now while he’s doing so poorly.

Pretty soon we’ll be looking at milktoast Mitt and people screaming about how it’s our requirement to hold our collective noses and vote for Mitt because otherwise we’ll get 4 more years of Obama.

Jenny: I am just sick of the circus. Cain is not the only candidate out there, all the Republicans are suffering because of him. Cain should get a better response team, or refuse to discuss the subject ever again. I was happy to see Newt doing well at the debate on Saturday night, and now any momentum from that is swallowed by sexual antics #3.
Cain was weak to say the least on Saturday night, but nobody worries about his actual competency because we are all running around trying to defend him from sex charges. Come on, even on the competency issues Cain is not Presidential material. Why are we wasting time on him when we should be fighting Obama?

[…] to come forward has revealed herself with sordid details to boot. As Professor Jacobson points out, no matter whether or not she’s telling the truth or whether she’s just another in a […]

Apparently, Bialek’s account is backed up by testimony from her former boyfriend (a physician) and another businessman — both taken under oath.

While withholding final judgment, I think the account is credible enough to warrant serious consideration. I am glad I did go “all in” for a Cain nomination after Palin’s departure; I would be one sad puppy.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Mutnodjmet. | November 7, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    I would definitely wait on that final judgement. People are scrambling all over the internet to find out Ms. Bialek’s history. Some of the things she “may” have been involved with: A Paternity Case with the EVP/National Sales Manager at News America Marketing, Bankruptcy Filings, Tax Liens, and Suing a Cab Company for Personal Injury. If any of this stuff turns out true, she will lose her credibility fast.

    Bialek’s former boyfriend and another businessman wasn’t in the car when the alleged incident happened in 1997. So I don’t know what they could have possibly sworn an oath to.

    Whatever the outcome, Cain needs to resolve this quickly.

    My, how we’ve fallen so quickly from elation with Saturday’s debate back to leash of the Media and the trepidation of losing 2012.

      Mutnodjmet in reply to Aucturian. | November 7, 2011 at 6:58 pm

      They could have testified as to her state of mind and how she described her experiences with Cain before, during, and after the event. The TESTIMONY IS UNDER OATH, CORROBORATING HER STORY! Under oath, with the penalty of perjury hanging over their head if they are caught in a lie.

      Big Government has an update that confirms her standing as a Republican: ***UPDATE: Big Government has confirmed through a source that Sharon Bialek is a Republican who registered to vote in Chicago in 2006 and voted in the 2008 Republican primary and the 2008 general election.

        VetHusbandFather in reply to Mutnodjmet. | November 7, 2011 at 7:10 pm

        No its just under oath that she told them that story. It doesn’t mean that they are under oath that her story is accurate.

          So, Bialek lied like a rug to 2 individuals important in her life so she could bring down Cain 20 years later when he was running for President. Sorry, I am just not buying it.

        VetHusbandFather in reply to Mutnodjmet. | November 7, 2011 at 7:16 pm

        Lookup Sharon Bialek in 60060 (Where her Fiance has confirmed she currently lives).

        There is no Registered Voter by that name. She can attend a Tea Party event without being a Registered Republican…

          So, you are going to dismiss Breitbart’s Big Government, a source we trust and one that has uncovered quite a bit of fraud in the past? I am incredulous.

        Kenshu Ani in reply to Mutnodjmet. | November 7, 2011 at 9:49 pm

        So what if she registered as a Republican? I don’t know about her state, but in mine you have to register in a party if you want to vote in that party’s primary.

        In my state, it is a common practice to switch parties to vote against a potentially tough opponent for your general election favorite.

        For example, a Democrat voter has an incumbent (Democrat) that might face a tough election against a Republican. So the voter registers as a Republican and votes against the tough Republican and for the RINO in an effort have the RINO on the ballot for the general election.

        As far as we know, she could have been doing the same thing. She might have even gone to the Tea Party in a “Crash the Tea Party” attempt.

Cain is going full Nixon, issuing a non-denial, denial. Cain just blanket says the charges are false. But, did Cain know Bilaek? Did they have dinner? Did Cain take her back to the NRA office?

David R. Graham | November 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm

“Andrew Breitbart – time to investigate and find out the TRUTH!”

No DINORightMarie, you do it!

    DINORightMarie in reply to David R. Graham. | November 7, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    I thank you, but I personally don’t have the megaphone Breitbart has. 😉 But of course I can google, do that kind of digging……which is already done by now.


am4constitution | November 7, 2011 at 6:58 pm

A few points: (Full disclosure requires me to let you know that I am a woman)

If Cain is a serial sexual predator, then according to Alred’s criteria.. Every MAN out there is! What man do you know that has made a sexual pass and been turned down… ONLY to go on and try again, sometimes with the same woman or even a different one?? AHhh the horror!

Second: Here is how I see the whole thing breaking down: She led him on, she called him, she met him, so he upgraded her room. She accepted a dinner invite after the drinks at the hotel bar and he put the moves on her on the way home. Now here is where everyone keeps saying it was 1) sexual assault or 2)harasment… not even!!!~ 1) according to her OWN words he stopped when she said no. 2) She was not employed by Cain, nor any agency related to him in any way.

Third: I believe Cain is the victim here, she led him on. He really thought he was getting something out of this meeting and her OWN words again prove this: “he asked me what exactly I wanted from him”. If this statement from Cain is a true representation of his words that night, it does indeed sound to me, that he was confused at what she had met him for, if not for a trist!

Cain may be guilty of screwing around on his wife, but that is about it. I do see this as damaging, but meh… what isn’t that the dems/msm throw out there at our “anybody but romney/obama” candidates?

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) in reply to am4constitution. | November 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    yeah, you make a lot of sense. An attractive younger woman ends up in the car alone with Cain? That is not a standard way to get a job. Take away her scripted statements about the hand and pulling her head down, and if she wanted a job … everything changes.

    The others she confided in at the time apparently did not get those specifics. And will she be compensated somewhere down the line, maybe secretly or after the election?

    Now where are Obama’s fellow stoners from Columbia daze? Probably afraid to come out.

    am4constitution, you nailed it.

Let’s see, not paying any attention to the details, this taking place in Chicago, I’m saying Axelrod is involved.
Who was it that ‘leaked’ the Ryan’s sealed divorce documents when Obama was running for then senator of Illinois in 2004 (was it?)
Who wrote this script??

There is a great deal of wishful thinking, conspiracy-mongering, pouting and whining in these comments and among Cain fans and some other conservatives.

I have defended Cain for the past week, mainly because I felt — and still believe — that the Politico stories were thinly sourced, vague and fundamentally unfair.

But enough is enough. We now have confirmation from the NRA of the essential facts that Cain was accused of sexual harassment by two women years ago when he was not a candidate and there could have been no political motive for complaining about them. We have at least two other named sources saying they observed similar conduct during the same period. We have the account of a third woman. And now we have a fourth who is willing to stand in front of cameras and describe conduct toward her by a much older married man that can only be regarded as crude and creepy.

On top of that, we have all witnessed a week-long spectacle of Cain — and his dopey “chief if staff” — constantly changing his accounts and explanations, sometimes twice a day. This is not merely “bad PR” or amateurish politics. It is manifestly an unwillingness to be straightforward. That is not always easy or comfortable, but it makes “good PR” to tell the truth and appeal to people’s good sense.

It is becoming clear that Cain’s behavior was a pattern. It is inevitable that there will be a fifth and sixth woman or others with stories to tell about what they observed. If Cain stays in the race, it is also virtually certain that the details of the charges by the first two women will become public, non-disclosure agreements notwithstanding.

Cain can no more hold this back or finesse it at this point than Anthony Weiner was able to stem the flow of damaging disclosures either by stonewalling or by doing a raft of media interviews or by holding an exhaustive news conference.

It is over. Someone has to tell Herman — and lots of his supporters have to reconnect with reality.

I know that the Politico articles contained no details except for a paltry settlement amounts. Not necessarily proof of guilt, just proof of not wanting to spend even more money going to trial.

I know that the woman from the Politco accounts would not step forward even after getting the “OK” from the NRA. Which leads me to believe the entire harrassment deal was trumped up for an easy settlement.

I know that a well known partisan hack lawyer, Allred, found a woman that DIDN’T lodge a complaint or filed a suit against Cain for harrassment. Instead offering a she said/he said version. Since I don’t trust Allred, I’m discounting the woman and her story.

Will the above knowledge affect my vote? Absolutely not. What does affect my vote is the actions that Cain has taken in response, which hasn’t been good. First he wavered, then he attacked fellow Republicans.

What Republicans need to figure out is that their enemy isn’t fellow Republicans. It is the establishment media. Cain should have attacked Politico for lack of facts, shoddy journalism, character assassination, etc; instead of attacking Perry. In my opinion, that was the worse damage done to Cain, and it was self inflicted.

Will I vote for Cain in the primary? Too far in the future to tell. He has damaged himself, but I think that if he can weather this out then it might have been the worst that the media can do to slime him. Of couse that does depend on if he has any more skeletons in the closet, and only he knows that.

I do know that in the general election, I will vote for ANY Republican over Obama except for Romney. I would rather see Obama in a gridlocked second term, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, than see Romney in the Presidency with Republicans controlling Congress. In my opinion, Romney doesn’t have the spine or desire to do what is necessary with repealing Obamacare. I’m afraid that he would instead try to modify Obamacare instead of repeal; and if Congress is Republican he might succeed.

theduchessofkitty | November 7, 2011 at 8:21 pm

Now, can anyone solve this puzzle for me?

If that woman calls herself a “Tea Partier”, then what the $^#%!# is she doing by having Gloria Allred as legal counsel?

I don’t know which is worse, the unsubstantiated accusations or the fact the everyone thinks Cain should just roll over and pack it in. I’ve frankly had enough of the MSM’s manipulation of the news and telling the rest of us how to think, vote and act. A pox on all their houses. And if Barak Obama is presidential material so is Herman Cain or frankly the dog catcher in my township.

Cain’s real problem is integrity. John Edwards and Bill Clinton are liars and sleaze bags. Cain is trying to be good. The press which is vilifying Cain is the same press that covered for Edwards.

Reprehensible cowards.

Remember, we got G.W.Bush because the press hated the Clintons, and wanted Gore to fail, then. The press has been too powerful for too long.

I sent him more money tonight. The politics of personal destruction destroys us all. This is sick, sick, sick. We may not be able to stop it but what will become of us if we don’t try? How can we stand by & watch them do this again?

Prof I’ve got millions of things to say Politico etc.,

But Today Is Election Day in Ohio for Issue 2 and Issue 3 Referendums and I’m trying to get the word as many ways as I can

Hillbuzz has a piece ob it, and I’m sure there must be others×300.jpg

aguyfromjersey | November 8, 2011 at 7:04 am

So, let me get this straight. You set up a date night with the president on the organization you once worked for, whom you only met at conventions. Meet him for drinks and dinner. You want to get your job back, or another job (no reason give for loosing your previous job) You turn down his advances, and he stops when asked to. All of this in the 90’s, when the discussion of what “IS” is taking place. (I never had sex with that women on the nightly news, try explaining that to your 12 year old son).

Unprofessional political responses from a man who is running a unconventional campaign, NOT staffed by Washington or Party insiders. (How are those Professionals working out for you?). And now I’m supposed to abandon all hope, see the light, and follow the Party Insiders?

Just checking if I got the script right.

Isn’t it curious that so much talk is spent on Cain and his accusers right when Eric Holder is testifying on Fast and Furious? Especially since he is refusing to apologize for the death of Brian Terry?

Seems pretty convienent to me. Now the establishment media has a “legitimate” reason for not covering the likely scandal of the century.